Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5


Yes. The testimony of A who overheard B call X a thief is admissible in evidence as an
independently relevant statement. It is offered in evidence only to prove the tenor thereof,
not to prove the truth of the facts asserted therein. Independently relevant statements
include statements which are on the very facts in issue or those which are circumstantial
evidence thereof. The hearsay rule does not apply.

No. Ajax had not sufficiently met the burden of proving the existence of the written contract
because. It had not laid the basis for the admission of a purported copy thereof as secondary
evidence. Ajax should have first proven the execution of the original document and its loss or
destruction. (Sec. 5 of Rule 130)

3. IX(A) May the testimony of Nenita be allowed over the objection

of Walter? (3%)
No. Nenita may not be allowed to testify against Walter.
Under the Marital Disqualification Rule, during their marriage, neither the
husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of
the affected spouse, except in a civil case by one against the other, or in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter's direct
descendants or ascendants. (Section 22, Rule 130, Rules on Evidence). The
foregoing exceptions cannot apply since it only extends to a criminal case of one
spouse against the other or the latter’s direct ascendants or descendants.
Clearly, Nenita is not the offended party and her sister is not her direct ascendant
or descendant for her to fall within the exception.
Yes. Nenita may be allowed to testify against Walter.
It is well-settled that the marital disqualification rule does not apply when
the marital and domestic relations between the spouses are strained.
In Alvarez v. Ramirez, GR No. 143439, October 14, 2005, the Supreme
Court citing People v. Castañeda, 271 SCRA 504, held that the act of private respondent in
setting fire to the house of his sister-in-law Susan Ramirez,
knowing fully well that his wife was there, and in fact with the alleged intent of
injuring the latter, is an act totally alien to the harmony and confidences of marital
relation which the disqualification primarily seeks to protect. The criminal act
complained of had the effect of directly and vitally impairing the conjugal relation.
It underscored the fact that the marital and domestic relations between her and
the accused-husband have become so strained that there is no more harmony,
peace or tranquility to be preserved. Hence, the identity is non-existent. In such
a situation, the security and confidences of private life which the law aims to
protect are nothing but ideals which through their absence, merely leave a void in
the unhappy home. Thus, there is no reason to apply the Marital Disqualification Rule
IX(B) May the testimony of Dr. Carlos, Walter’s psychiatrist, be
allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)
Yes. The testimony of Walter’s psychiatrist may be allowed. The
privileged communication contemplated under Sec. 24 (c) Rule 130 of the Rules
on Evidence involves only persons authorized to practice medicine, surgery or
obstetrics. It does not include a Psychiatrist. Moreover, the privileged
communication applies only in civil cases and not in a criminal case for arson.
Besides, the subject of the testimony of Dr. Carlos was not in connection
with the advice or treatment given by him to Walter, or any information he
acquired in attending to Walter in a professional capacity. The testimony of Dr.
Carlos is limited only to what he perceived at the vicinity of the fire and at about
the time of the fire.
IX(C) May the testimony of Fr. Platino, the priest-confessor, be
allowed over Walter’s objection? (3%)
C) Yes. The Priest can testify over the objection of Walter. The
disqualification requires that the same were made pursuant to a religious duty
enjoined in the course of discipline of the sect or denomination to which they
belong and must be confidential and penitential in character, e.g., under the seal
of confession.(Sec. 24 (d) Rule 130, Rules on Evidence)
Here, the testimony of Fr. Platino was not previously subject of a confession of Walter or an
advice given by him to Walter in his professional character. The testimony was merely limited to
what Fr. Platino perceived “at the vicinity of the fire and at about the time of the fire.” Hence, Fr.
Platino may be
allowed to testify.

Yes. The accused can testify by repeating his earlier uncounseled extrajudicial confession,
because he can be subjected to cross-examination.

5. a) If the prosecution presents Police Officer Roberto Maawa to testify on what Candida had
him, would such testimony of the policeman be hearsay? Explain.
No. The testimony of the policeman is not hearsay. It is part of the res gestae. It is also an
independently relevant statement. The police officer testified of his own personal knowledge,
not to the truth of Candida's statement, i.e., that she told him, despite her pleas, Dencio had
raped her. (People v. Gaddi,G.R.
No. 74065, February 27,1989)
b) If the police officer will testify that he noticed Candida to be hysterical and on the verge of
collapse, would such testimony be considered as opinion, hence, inadmissible? Explain.
No, it cannot be considered as opinion, because he was testifying on what he actually
observed. The last paragraph of Sec. 50, Rule 130, Revised Rules of
by: sirdondee@gmail.com Page 55 of 66 Evidence, expressly provides that a witness may testify
his impressions of the emotion, behavior, condition or appearance of a person.
6. Requisites of a Dying Declaration are:
a.) Declaration concerns the cause and the surrounding circumstances of the declarant’s
death; b.) Made when death appears to be imminent and the declarant is under a
consciousness of an impending death; c.) Declarant would have been competent to testify
had he or she survived; and d.) Dying declaration is offered in a case in which the subject of
inquiry involves the declarant’s death.

No, Julieta’s testimony is not admissible against Romeo, because while the excited account
of Antonio, a witness to the accident, was told to Romeo, it was only Romeo who told Julieta
about it, which makes it hearsay.

a) Yes, because Pedro has alleged in his complaint that the promissory note does not express
the true intent and agreement of the parties. This is an exception to the parol evidence rule.
[Sec. 9(b) of Rule130, Rules of Court]

b) Yes, the copy in the possession of Pedro is a duplicate original and with identical contents.
[Sec. 4(b)of Rule 130]. Moreover, the failure of Lucio to producethe original of the note is
excusable because he was not given reasonable notice, as requirement under the
Rules before secondary evidence may be presented. (Sec. 6 of Rule 130, Rules of Court)
Note: The promissory note is an actionable document and the original or a copy thereof
should have been attached to the complaint. (Sec. 7 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure).
In such a case, the genuineness and due execution of thenote, if not denied under oath, would
be deemed admitted. (Sec. 8 of Rule 9, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

a) Is the objection valid? (3%)
b) Will your answer be the same if Vida’s testimony
is offered in a civil case for recovery of personal
property filed by Selmo against Romeo? (2%)

(a) No. While neither the husband nor the wife may testify for or against the other without
the consent of the affected spouse, one exception is if the testimony of the spouse is in a
criminal case for a crime committed by one against the other or the latter’s direct
descendants or ascendants. (Sec, 22, Rule 130). The case falls under this exception because
Selma is the direct descendant of the spouse Vide.

(b) No. The marital disqualification rule applies this time. The exception provided by the
rules is in a civil case by one spouse against the other. The case here involves a case by Selmo
for the recovery of personal property against Vida’s spouse, Romeo.

10.) Exceptions to hearsay rule. Give at least 4 and explain.

b. The exceptions to the hearsay rule are: dying declaration, declaration against interest, act
or declaration about pedigree, family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree.

Section 37. Dying declaration. — The declaration of a dying person, made under
the consciousness of an impending death, may be received in any case wherein his death is
the subject of inquiry, as evidence of the cause and surrounding circumstances of such death.
Section 38. Declaration against interest. — The declaration made by a person deceased, or
unable to testify, against the interest of the declarant, if the fact is asserted in the declaration
was at the time it was made so far contrary to declarant's own interest, that a reasonable
man in his position would not have made the declaration unless he believed it to be true, may
be received in evidence against himself or his successors in interest and against third
persons. (32a)
Section 39. Act or declaration about pedigree. — The act or declaration of a person deceased,
or unable to testify, in respect to the pedigree of another person related to him by birth or
marriage, may be received in evidence where it occurred before the controversy, and the
relationship between the two persons is shown by evidence other than such act or
declaration. The word "pedigree" includes relationship, family genealogy, birth, marriage,
death, the dates when and the places where these fast occurred, and the names of the
relatives. It embraces also facts of family history intimately connected with pedigree. (33a)
Section 40. Family reputation or tradition regarding pedigree. — The reputation or tradition
existing in a family previous to the controversy, in respect to the pedigree of any one of its
members, may be received in evidence if the witness testifying thereon be also a member of
the family, either by consanguinity or affinity. Entries in family bibles or other family books
or charts, engravings on rings, family portraits and the like, may be received as evidence of
pedigree. (34a)

Похожие интересы